🌟 Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, known as Martyn’s law, was debated in the House of Commons, focusing on amendments made by the House of Lords. The bill aims to enhance security in public spaces and events following the Manchester Arena attack in 2017, driven by the campaign of Figen Murray, who lost her son in the tragedy. Key amendments clarified the scope of the bill to exclude private events and introduced safeguards on the powers of the Secretary of State to amend public protection procedures. The bill received broad cross-party support, with MPs urging continued review of its impact on small venues while praising the collaborative effort to strengthen this vital legislation.

Summary

  • The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, also known as Martyn’s law, was discussed in the House of Commons following amendments made by the House of Lords.

  • The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, moved to approve Lords amendment 1, and it was considered alongside amendments 2 to 13.

  • Lords amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were technical changes to clarify that private events like weddings and office parties are not covered by the Bill, only public events.

  • Lords amendment 5, introduced by the Liberal Democrats, mandates the Secretary of State to consult before publishing guidance under clause 27, which the Government accepted to ensure comprehensive preparation and engagement.

  • Lords amendments 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 strengthen safeguards on Henry VIII powers, consolidating them into clause 32 and requiring the Secretary of State to meet strict conditions and consult before altering public protection measures or thresholds.

  • The Bill aims to enhance safety in public venues in response to the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack, led by the campaign efforts of Figen Murray, who lost her son Martyn Hett in the attack.

  • Concerns were raised about the burden on small venues like pubs and churches, with a call for the Government to review the impact and keep thresholds under review.

  • All Lords amendments were supported and agreed upon, reflecting a collaborative and cross-party effort to pass the legislation.

  • The Government expressed gratitude towards law enforcement and intelligence agencies for their role in public safety.

  • The Bill, a manifesto commitment, is aimed at ensuring public safety at events and premises, demonstrating the priority of security in the UK.

Divisiveness

The session exhibits a very low level of disagreement. The primary focus of the parliamentary debate was on the Lords amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and the contributions from different Members of Parliament across various parties were overwhelmingly supportive and collaborative. Here is a detailed explanation of why the rating is low:

  1. Unanimous Support for Amendments: All speakers expressed support for the Lords amendments. For instance, Dan Jarvis moved for the House to agree with the Lords amendments, and this was followed by consistent support from opposition and other party members. Katie Lam (Conservative) stated, ‘We are happy to support the Lords amendments today.’ Similarly, Tim Roca (Labour) and Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrats) expressed support, with Lisa Smart noting the ‘sensible and proportionate’ nature of the changes.

  2. Positive Tone and Language: Throughout the session, the language was respectful and positive towards both the amendments and the collaborative nature of the legislative process. Dan Jarvis highlighted the ‘collaborative approach’ to scrutinising the Bill, and Katie Lam welcomed the ‘spirit of support, co-operation and openness.’ The positive tone indicates a lack of disagreement.

  3. Acknowledgment of Collaboration: Multiple speakers, including Dan Jarvis and Lisa Smart, praised the collaborative work done across both Houses of Parliament. There were mentions of constructive contributions from peers like Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Baroness Suttie, suggesting a cohesive effort rather than divisiveness.

  4. Minimal Critique: While there were concerns mentioned, particularly by Katie Lam on the impact on small venues and by Jim Shannon on Northern Ireland-specific issues, these were not contentious and were framed as areas for further dialogue rather than points of disagreement. The Minister responded affirmatively, promising to engage further on these matters, which signifies an intent to maintain the cooperative atmosphere rather than allowing for disagreement to escalate.

  5. Tributes and Acknowledgments: The session included numerous tributes to the campaigning efforts of Figen Murray and her team, as well as appreciation for various individuals involved in the legislative process. These tributes reflect a unified front rather than fragmented views.

  6. Conclusion of Session: All proposed Lords amendments were agreed upon without any objection or vote against, which is a clear indicator of a lack of disagreement.

Overall, the session’s conduct, with all amendments being accepted and supported without significant dissent, clearly warrants a rating of 1, as there is very little indication of any substantial disagreement throughout the proceedings.